Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

m6811-elf-gcc.exe: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or dir

Expand Messages
  • microcodefun
    Dear group, After installing gnu-68hc1x-3.1.exe under Windows Vista and recompiling my HCS12 project, I run into the following problem: m6811-elf-gcc.exe:
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 3, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear group,

      After installing gnu-68hc1x-3.1.exe under Windows Vista and
      recompiling my HCS12 project, I run into the following problem:
      "m6811-elf-gcc.exe: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such
      file or dir".

      I downloaded the installer from http://m68hc11.serveftp.org/. When I
      install under Windows XP the exact same project compiles fine.

      Does anyone know the solution to this problem or point me in the right
      direction for solving it?

      Thanks for your time,

      -Frank
    • Mike McCarty
      ... Very likely a PATH problem. Mike -- p= p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} ;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} Oppose globalization and One World Governments like
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 3, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        microcodefun wrote:
        > Dear group,
        >
        > After installing gnu-68hc1x-3.1.exe under Windows Vista and
        > recompiling my HCS12 project, I run into the following problem:
        > "m6811-elf-gcc.exe: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such
        > file or dir".

        Very likely a PATH problem.

        Mike
        --
        p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
        This message made from 100% recycled bits.
        You have found the bank of Larn.
        I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
        I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
      • Eric Engler
        ... That s what I thought, but I ve worked with a couple people via email on this issue and I haven t been able to figure it out. I also had them try running
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 4, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@...> wrote:
          >
          > microcodefun wrote:
          > > After installing gnu-68hc1x-3.1.exe under Windows Vista and
          > > recompiling my HCS12 project, I run into the following problem:
          > > "m6811-elf-gcc.exe: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such
          > > file or dir".
          >
          > Very likely a PATH problem.

          That's what I thought, but I've worked with a couple people via email
          on this issue and I haven't been able to figure it out. I also had
          them try running as administrator on Vista and it didn't help.

          Try adding c:\usr\bin to your system path on My Computer, Properties,
          Advanced, Environment Variables. At least, that's the XP way to change
          your path. I'm not sure how the Vista menus work. Everything related
          to system settings in Vista seems to live under the Control Panel.

          I don't have a Vista machine myself yet. Does anyone out there have
          Vista, and have you been able to get the gcc hc11/hc12 port to run on
          Vista?

          One thing I haven't tried is to have them disable User Account Control
          (Google "Vista" and "UAC" for more info). This is not a good idea
          because it circumvents security, but it sure makes things easier to
          run under Vista.

          Eric
        • Jeff Smith
          ... I m surprised nobody has mentioned the thread in this group, where the problem has been solved: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/gnu-m68hc11/message/8678
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 6, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@...> wrote:

            > > Very likely a PATH problem.
            >
            > That's what I thought, but I've worked with a couple people via
            > email on this issue and I haven't been able to figure it out. I also
            > had them try running as administrator on Vista and it didn't help.
            >
            > Try adding c:\usr\bin to your system path on My Computer,
            > Properties, Advanced, Environment Variables. At least, that's the XP
            > way to change your path. I'm not sure how the Vista menus work.
            > Everything related to system settings in Vista seems to live under
            > the Control Panel.
            >
            > I don't have a Vista machine myself yet. Does anyone out there have
            > Vista, and have you been able to get the gcc hc11/hc12 port to run
            > on Vista?
            >
            > One thing I haven't tried is to have them disable User Account
            > Control (Google "Vista" and "UAC" for more info). This is not a good
            > idea because it circumvents security, but it sure makes things
            > easier to run under Vista.

            I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the thread in this group, where the
            problem has been solved:

            http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/gnu-m68hc11/message/8678

            Basically, you need to pay attention to what file is not found. Search
            for "cc1" so you can see what needs added to your path. Apparently for
            that installation, these paths were needed:

            C:\Program Files\68hc11\bin;C:\Program
            Files\68hc11\m6811-elf\bin;C:\Program
            Files\68hc11\lib\gcc-lib\m6811-elf\3.3.6-m68hc1x-20060122
          • Eric Engler
            ... I loaded Vista in a virtual machine so I could test this. It s correct that a good path will fix the cc1 issue. I ll update EmbeddedGNU to have it set the
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 7, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Smith" <imajeff84663@...> wrote:

              > Basically, you need to pay attention to what file is not found. Search
              > for "cc1" so you can see what needs added to your path. Apparently for
              > that installation, these paths were needed:
              >
              > C:\Program Files\68hc11\bin;C:\Program
              > Files\68hc11\m6811-elf\bin;C:\Program
              > Files\68hc11\lib\gcc-lib\m6811-elf\3.3.6-m68hc1x-20060122

              I loaded Vista in a virtual machine so I could test this. It's correct
              that a good path will fix the cc1 issue. I'll update EmbeddedGNU to
              have it set the right path for you, since it's a hassle to set the path.

              Eric
            • Eric Engler
              ... I just released version 1.01 of EmbeddedGNU to fix this Vista path issue. Oddly, I couldn t make the help file work in Vista even with the Microsoft help
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 7, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Smith" <imajeff84663@> wrote:
                >
                > > Basically, you need to pay attention to what file is not found. Search
                > > for "cc1" so you can see what needs added to your path.

                > I loaded Vista in a virtual machine so I could test this. It's correct
                > that a good path will fix the cc1 issue. I'll update EmbeddedGNU to
                > have it set the right path for you, since it's a hassle to set the path.

                I just released version 1.01 of EmbeddedGNU to fix this Vista path
                issue. Oddly, I couldn't make the help file work in Vista even with
                the Microsoft help file download. I'll convert it to a .chm or .pdf
                someday.

                Eric
                http://www.ericengler.com/EmbeddedGNU.aspx
              • microcodefun
                Dear Group, Just wanted to say thanks to all that responded to my initial question. By appending my path under Windows Vista, the problem is now resolved. Note
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 10, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Group,

                  Just wanted to say thanks to all that responded to my initial
                  question. By appending my path under Windows Vista, the problem is now
                  resolved.

                  Note that I also updated the Syn Code Editor to handle this
                  automatically. The (free) new version 1.02 can be downloaded from
                  http://www.feaser.com/store/syn_hc12.php.

                  -Frank
                • Jeff Smith
                  ... Can someone pragmatically verify what is broken in Vista? The only thing I know GCC is trying to do is to execute a binary from a relative path. It
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 10, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "microcodefun" <voorburg@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Dear Group,
                    >
                    > Just wanted to say thanks to all that responded to my initial
                    > question. By appending my path under Windows Vista, the problem is now
                    > resolved.

                    Can someone pragmatically verify what is "broken" in Vista? The only
                    thing I know GCC is trying to do is to execute a binary from a
                    relative path. It sounds to me some sort of random attempt at security.

                    For example in XP, I installed in "D:\usr". I execute
                    "D:\usr\bin\m6811-elf-gcc.exe" because PATH has "D:\usr\bin". From
                    there, gcc derives this absolute path in order to execute the other:

                    D:\usr\bin\..\lib\gcc-lib\m6811-elf\3.3.6-m68hc1x-20060122\cc1.exe

                    What could be wrong with Vista? It could be just an attempt at
                    security to say that even absolute paths are executable if the resul
                    is configured in the env PATH. It could be that Vista is not smart
                    enough to properly understand the ".." as used above.
                  • Eric Engler
                    ... It seems like a security issue, but it s not. It s also not related to relative pathnames and the error message about a missing file is bogus. It says that
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 10, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Smith" <imajeff84663@...> wrote:

                      > Can someone pragmatically verify what is "broken" in Vista? The only
                      > thing I know GCC is trying to do is to execute a binary from a
                      > relative path. It sounds to me some sort of random attempt at security.

                      It seems like a security issue, but it's not. It's also not related to
                      relative pathnames and the error message about a missing file is
                      bogus. It says that the shell to cc1 failed, and then it reports that
                      the file wasn't found. The first part of the error is correct, and
                      the second part is based on an invalid assumption. The reason for the
                      failure was not a missing file.

                      The real problem is a library problem that was always wrong but it
                      worked under XP so nobody cared. The make program (I *think* the make
                      program is the guilty party here, although the bug may belong to
                      Microsoft) was calling cc1 in one of 2 different ways, and one of them
                      worked (using the system path worked). The relative path call was
                      actually a different variation of the call, and that was failing in
                      Vista because the bug in XP was fixed in Vista. As I understand it,
                      the XP library had a bug that was being worked-around in the code for
                      one of the overloads of the shell (_spawnvp) command. That work-around
                      no longer works in Vista because the under-lying problem was fixed.

                      That's also the story of my life - you fix a low-level problem and a
                      bunch of other code breaks. Sometimes its smarter not to fix problems
                      but don't tell my boss because I need a pay check :-)

                      Our own work-around of adding the folder to the path is not directly
                      fixing anything but it forces the "working" style of the call to be made.

                      The first explanation here applies to us (and I seriously hope the
                      second one does NOT apply to us):
                      http://www.madwizard.org/extern/winavr-vista/

                      I actually saw a better explanation of this somewhere but I can't seem
                      to locate that right now. That went into a deeper discussion of the
                      shell call and the author was able to prove this by providing his own
                      version of sh.exe to mimmic the linux shell on Windows. That
                      discussion may have been in the context of Dev-C++ (the project that
                      EmbeddedGNU was loosly based on).

                      Eric
                    • Jeff Smith
                      ... Eric, Eric, Eric... You ve got to think like a computer: If I get the wrong return value when checking access of a file, then there is simply no such file
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 11, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@...> wrote:
                        > The real problem is a library problem that was always wrong but it
                        > worked under XP so nobody cared. The make program (I *think* the
                        > make program is the guilty party here, although the bug may belong
                        > to Microsoft) was calling cc1 in one of 2 different ways, and one of
                        > them worked (using the system path worked). The relative path call
                        > was actually a different variation of the call, and that was failing
                        > in Vista because the bug in XP was fixed in Vista. As I understand
                        > it, the XP library had a bug that was being worked-around in the
                        > code for one of the overloads of the shell (_spawnvp) command. That
                        > work-around no longer works in Vista because the under-lying problem
                        > was fixed.

                        Eric, Eric, Eric... You've got to think like a computer: "If I get the
                        wrong return value when checking access of a file, then there is
                        simply no such file or directory" ;-)

                        We programmers, at least, automatically assume that when we say "no
                        such file", we only mean that we cannot access such a file in the
                        current context, so no surprises there. As a matter of fact, I rarely
                        come across a case where that report meant that the file actually did
                        not exist. In the case where it was missing, It was a "MS Windows
                        user" who had deleted all possible system files because they did not
                        know what they were.

                        The gnu-m68hc11 is ported with mingw, so I think you're right that we
                        see no cygwin errors unless we also install cygwin which has the problem.

                        Well, thank you for the reference. This is the best explanation that I
                        found:
                        http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30972
                        I still had a hard time seeing why adding an environment path makes it
                        work, but I guess it only calls "_access" (via spawnvp) if cc1 not
                        found in the system path. Does it mean "spawnv" is the method that
                        works when it is found in the system path, and it is attempted before
                        spawnvp? It showes that I'm not as big on coding for the OS, but more
                        experienced in embedded programming.

                        I don't see why you say `make` would be the problem. It is obviously a
                        problem in `gcc`, and your reference is patching "avr-gcc.exe" and
                        "msys-1.0.dll", which verifies my assumption.

                        You didn't mention that the problem comes from porting to Windows. It
                        should be obvious that GCC is not a native MS Win app. So there is not
                        actually a bug in gcc until trying to tie it to msvcrt.dll and the lib
                        functions don't directly match what it needed to do in GNU/Linux.

                        I would not call it a "bug" in XP, yet we see that in any case,
                        permissiveness causes problems when the system later becomes more strict.

                        As always, I still encourage all to run GCC on GNU, not MS Win! I'm
                        surprised how many people act like there is something better about
                        being able to run it in a Microsof environment.
                      • Eric Engler
                        ... I guess this is what s happening. It seems odd to me that they d check the system path before checking a path that they were passed. Or maybe they are
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 11, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Smith" <imajeff84663@...> wrote:

                          > I still had a hard time seeing why adding an environment path makes it
                          > work, but I guess it only calls "_access" (via spawnvp) if cc1 not
                          > found in the system path. Does it mean "spawnv" is the method that
                          > works when it is found in the system path, and it is attempted before
                          > spawnvp?

                          I guess this is what's happening. It seems odd to me that they'd check
                          the system path before checking a path that they were passed. Or maybe
                          they are checking the relative path first and that fails due to the
                          bug and then they try the system path, which works.

                          > I don't see why you say `make` would be the problem. It is obviously a
                          > problem in `gcc`, and your reference is patching "avr-gcc.exe" and
                          > "msys-1.0.dll", which verifies my assumption.

                          My make program had the problem but I was able to compile from a
                          command line (at least I think I was if memory serves). The avr
                          executables are likely different than ours so don't make too much of
                          that web page - I meant to point out the problem and not really how it
                          relates to their .exes. I don't understand exactly why make would be
                          the problem - it seems to me that make does not call cc1 directly. Or
                          maybe my test was faulty because I was in a hurry to find a resolution.

                          > As always, I still encourage all to run GCC on GNU, not MS Win! I'm
                          > surprised how many people act like there is something better about
                          > being able to run it in a Microsof environment.

                          I'm not religious about operating systems. I have more combined years
                          of experience with various flavors of unix and linux, but Windows is
                          currently favored by my employer. And I do a lot with .NET so I have
                          to stay on good terms with Microsoft. I am involved in local user
                          groups that are sponsered by Microsoft.

                          I know a lot of developers my age remember the dark days when it was
                          difficult to get information from Microsoft (late 80's and throughout
                          the 90's), but you can trust me when I say the company has genuinely
                          changed their attitudes towards developers. They go to great lengths
                          to help us in many ways, and I never pay them a dime. They have
                          regional developer evangelists who do a terrific job getting answers
                          to tough questions. I met with one of the guys from the Vista team
                          Monday but I didn't bring up this issue with him. We talked a lot
                          about a very cool change to the threading model that gives a separate
                          I/O priority in addition to the basic thread priority. This allows
                          background services like virus checkers (or Windows Defender) to run
                          in the background without mucking up the foreground responsiveness.
                          They also added a realtime media priority so videos won't jerk around
                          when you do a compile while watching a movie. This alone makes Vista a
                          good upgrade path.

                          The new server flavor of Windows has even better stuff, like hot
                          swappable RAM!

                          I'm also working with .NET on linux using mono, so I hope to offer an
                          IDE for that platform as time allows. Time is never on my side,
                          though, so I don't want to leave any false impressions about a timeline.

                          Eric
                        • Ioan Petrescu
                          Hi Eric, Reading your comment: here in this part of the world where I live there are some rumors about the existence of Support for Unix Applications kit
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 11, 2007
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Eric,
                            Reading your comment: here in this part of the world where I live there are
                            some rumors about the existence of "Support for Unix Applications" kit only
                            for Vista Ultimate Edition, allowing Unix/Linux applications to run on MS Windows
                            after compiling the sources. Did you try it? can we, developers take some benefits
                            from that? I did not upgraded to Vista up to now, but planned to do in autumn.
                            Regards,
                            Yoan

                            Eric Engler wrote:

                            --- In gnu-m68hc11@ yahoogroups. com, "Jeff Smith" <imajeff84663@ ...> wrote:

                            > I still had a hard time seeing why adding an environment path makes it
                            > work, but I guess it only calls "_access" (via spawnvp) if cc1 not
                            > found in the system path. Does it mean "spawnv" is the method that
                            > works when it is found in the system path, and it is attempted before
                            > spawnvp?

                            I guess this is what's happening. It seems odd to me that they'd check
                            the system path before checking a path that they were passed. Or maybe
                            they are checking the relative path first and that fails due to the
                            bug and then they try the system path, which works.

                            > I don't see why you say `make` would be the problem. It is obviously a
                            > problem in `gcc`, and your reference is patching "avr-gcc.exe" and
                            > "msys-1.0.dll" , which verifies my assumption.

                            My make program had the problem but I was able to compile from a
                            command line (at least I think I was if memory serves). The avr
                            executables are likely different than ours so don't make too much of
                            that web page - I meant to point out the problem and not really how it
                            relates to their .exes. I don't understand exactly why make would be
                            the problem - it seems to me that make does not call cc1 directly. Or
                            maybe my test was faulty because I was in a hurry to find a resolution.

                            > As always, I still encourage all to run GCC on GNU, not MS Win! I'm
                            > surprised how many people act like there is something better about
                            > being able to run it in a Microsof environment.

                            I'm not religious about operating systems. I have more combined years
                            of experience with various flavors of unix and linux, but Windows is
                            currently favored by my employer. And I do a lot with .NET so I have
                            to stay on good terms with Microsoft. I am involved in local user
                            groups that are sponsered by Microsoft.

                            I know a lot of developers my age remember the dark days when it was
                            difficult to get information from Microsoft (late 80's and throughout
                            the 90's), but you can trust me when I say the company has genuinely
                            changed their attitudes towards developers. They go to great lengths
                            to help us in many ways, and I never pay them a dime. They have
                            regional developer evangelists who do a terrific job getting answers
                            to tough questions. I met with one of the guys from the Vista team
                            Monday but I didn't bring up this issue with him. We talked a lot
                            about a very cool change to the threading model that gives a separate
                            I/O priority in addition to the basic thread priority. This allows
                            background services like virus checkers (or Windows Defender) to run
                            in the background without mucking up the foreground responsiveness.
                            They also added a realtime media priority so videos won't jerk around
                            when you do a compile while watching a movie. This alone makes Vista a
                            good upgrade path.

                            The new server flavor of Windows has even better stuff, like hot
                            swappable RAM!

                            I'm also working with .NET on linux using mono, so I hope to offer an
                            IDE for that platform as time allows. Time is never on my side,
                            though, so I don't want to leave any false impressions about a timeline.

                            Eric

                          • Jeff Smith
                            ... I think many things seem strange in the GCC source, partly because it s so old, but must have worked well enough to not justify a rewrite just to target
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 12, 2007
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@...> wrote:
                              > I guess this is what's happening. It seems odd to me that they'd
                              > check the system path before checking a path that they were passed.
                              > Or maybe they are checking the relative path first and that fails
                              > due to the bug and then they try the system path, which works.

                              I think many things seem strange in the GCC source, partly because
                              it's so old, but must have worked well enough to not justify a rewrite
                              just to target m68hc11. Have you ever questioned why it would be more
                              important to have source code than to have a babysitter who is already
                              paid (i.e. that "regional developer evangelist" you mention)? Because
                              now you can find the problem AND make it work, at your own pace.


                              > My make program had the problem but I was able to compile from a
                              > command line (at least I think I was if memory serves). The avr
                              > executables are likely different than ours so don't make too much of
                              > that web page - I meant to point out the problem and not really how
                              > it relates to their .exes. I don't understand exactly why make would
                              > be the problem - it seems to me that make does not call cc1
                              > directly. Or maybe my test was faulty because I was in a hurry to
                              > find a resolution.

                              Don't know what to tell you, because I don't think what you're saying
                              makes sense.


                              > > --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Smith" <imajeff84663@>
                              wrote:
                              > > As always, I still encourage all to run GCC on GNU, not MS Win!
                              > > I'm surprised how many people act like there is something better
                              > > about being able to run it in a Microsof environment.
                              >
                              > I'm not religious about operating systems. I have more combined
                              > years of experience with various flavors of unix and linux, but
                              > Windows is currently favored by my employer. And I do a lot with
                              > .NET so I have to stay on good terms with Microsoft. I am involved
                              > in local user groups that are sponsered by Microsoft.

                              It looks to me like you are certainly religious about Microsoft. I
                              understand "religion" to be the tangible part of our individual
                              beliefs that define us. Apparently you have a different definition.


                              > I know a lot of developers my age remember the dark days when it was
                              > difficult to get information from Microsoft (late 80's and
                              > throughout the 90's), but you can trust me when I say the company
                              > has genuinely changed their attitudes towards developers. They go to
                              > great lengths to help us in many ways, and I never pay them a dime.
                              > They have regional developer evangelists who do a terrific job
                              > getting answers to tough questions. I met with one of the guys from
                              > the Vista team Monday but I didn't bring up this issue with him. We
                              > talked a lot about a very cool change to the threading model that
                              > gives a separate I/O priority in addition to the basic thread
                              > priority. This allows background services like virus checkers (or
                              > Windows Defender) to run in the background without mucking up the
                              > foreground responsiveness. They also added a realtime media priority
                              > so videos won't jerk around when you do a compile while watching a
                              > movie. This alone makes Vista a good upgrade path.

                              That doesn't make you sound very old :-)
                              I remember sitting in a computer programming course, and someone did a
                              presentation about this new application called "Windows". He tried to
                              explain how great it was going to be. I had thoughts like, "How can
                              they call it an application when it does not do anything?" and "Why
                              the need to help a user start an application when DOS already runs a
                              program without all this overhead--are people stupid enought that they
                              don't know how to type the name and press enter? I was excited to
                              realize it was supposed to run multiple apps at once, but was
                              disappointed to find it could not do it reliably. Well at least they
                              improved that a little.

                              Here's another fond memory:
                              "oh I thought you said MicroProse... then who was MicroSoft again?"

                              Anyway, I think it's a weak point to say "look at all the Microsoft
                              improvements" in 10 years. To be fair, you would have to admit that
                              GNU/Linux saw more improvement than that in 3 years, and even *started
                              out* as a real multi-tasking and multi-user system.


                              > The new server flavor of Windows has even better stuff, like hot
                              > swappable RAM!

                              Do you not think that would be possible in another OS? Instead of
                              going by what one has done so far, why not pick the company that is
                              more likely to come up with good ideas soon, and then support THEM,
                              not support the one most likely to steal it. I have never known MS to
                              come up with an idea of their own (except unique methods of deception
                              which they call being competitive). I admit though, "stealing ideas"
                              goes both directions. It worries me that some ideas that some Linux
                              GUIs adopted from MS Win have made the Linux system worse. The biggest
                              example I think of is in general things that help users run Linux
                              without a clue what they are doing. Then they get mad at "Linux" when
                              it does not do what they wanted.


                              > IDE for that platform as time allows. Time is never on my side,
                              > though, so I don't want to leave any false impressions about a
                              > timeline.
                              >
                              > Eric

                              I hope you see here how you are "paying" MS much more than dimes. They
                              hope that you have time only to support the MS OS. That helps them
                              maintain a monopoly, adding billions of dollars to their numbers.
                            • Eric Engler
                              ... there are ... kit only ... I have the ultimate edition in my vmware session but I didn t try this unix support. I do remember seeing this somewhere on the
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 15, 2007
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, Ioan Petrescu <yoanp@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hi Eric,
                                > Reading your comment: here in this part of the world where I live
                                there are
                                > some rumors about the existence of "Support for Unix Applications"
                                kit only
                                > for Vista Ultimate Edition, allowing Unix/Linux applications to run on
                                > MS Windows
                                > after compiling the sources. Did you try it?

                                I have the ultimate edition in my vmware session but I didn't try this
                                unix support. I do remember seeing this somewhere on the web.

                                It seems odd to me that MS would be getting into the Cygwin realm. But
                                I think they're trying to get people to migrate from unix/linux to
                                Windows. I can't see any value in that. It would be a great deal of
                                effort to remove unix/linux from a company.

                                Now with VMware in production computer facilities it is easy to run
                                virtual servers using either linux or Windows. There isn't a strong
                                business case to switch either way. They can play well together.

                                Eric
                              • Eric Engler
                                ... It s the my own pace part of that ... I just don t have the time to dig into either linux or Windows source code. If I can consult with someone for free
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 15, 2007
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Smith" <imajeff84663@...> wrote:
                                  > Have you ever questioned why it would be more
                                  > important to have source code than to have a babysitter who is already
                                  > paid (i.e. that "regional developer evangelist" you mention)? Because
                                  > now you can find the problem AND make it work, at your own pace.

                                  It's the "my own pace" part of that ... I just don't have the time to
                                  dig into either linux or Windows source code. If I can consult with
                                  someone for free and get my answers that can save me a lot of time.

                                  > It looks to me like you are certainly religious about Microsoft. I
                                  > understand "religion" to be the tangible part of our individual
                                  > beliefs that define us. Apparently you have a different definition.

                                  I have enough knowledge of both platforms to know that neither one
                                  sucks and they both have merits in certain applications. It makes
                                  little sense to get all emotional about an operating system. After
                                  all, it's JUST an operating system! It can do almost nothing without
                                  application programs and that's where we come in.

                                  > Anyway, I think it's a weak point to say "look at all the Microsoft
                                  > improvements" in 10 years.

                                  I didn't reference improvements at all. That was a comment about how
                                  their corporate culture has changed in the way they relate to developers.

                                  > > The new server flavor of Windows has even better stuff, like hot
                                  > > swappable RAM!
                                  >
                                  > Do you not think that would be possible in another OS? Instead of
                                  > going by what one has done so far, why not pick the company that is
                                  > more likely to come up with good ideas soon, and then support THEM,
                                  > not support the one most likely to steal it.

                                  Everyone loves to sue Microsoft. I support that if there's a solid
                                  case to show that MS stole their technology.

                                  I don't know of any company that has this kind of technology but I
                                  guess their may be one. They obviously have serious marketing
                                  problems, though.

                                  > I have never known MS to
                                  > come up with an idea of their own (except unique methods of deception
                                  > which they call being competitive).

                                  VBX, COM, and ActiveX were Microsoft ideas, albeit poorly implemented.
                                  And then .NET was a Microsoft idea, and that is great. This started
                                  out as a way to fix COM and it grew into something much larger than
                                  anyone envisioned.

                                  The C# language is also a Microsoft idea, and they opened it as a
                                  standard for anyone to use. This fixes some of the short-comings in
                                  Java, such as the lack of properties. They also added a lot of good
                                  stuff like delegates, multicast events, etc. The sad thing for Java is
                                  that they wanted these things to be added to Java but Sun said no.
                                  That was a poor choice for the millions of Java coders.

                                  MS stole a lot of the ideas behind Windows but the code has been
                                  uniquely theirs to the best of my knowledge. Who else would build a
                                  GUI windowing system on top of MS-DOS?

                                  > I hope you see here how you are "paying" MS much more than dimes. They
                                  > hope that you have time only to support the MS OS. That helps them
                                  > maintain a monopoly, adding billions of dollars to their numbers.

                                  Money isn't evil. And companies aren't always evil. My company has
                                  decided not to open their own source code and this is good for me
                                  because it allows them to keep a competitive advantage and it keeps me
                                  employed.

                                  Eric
                                • Jeff Smith
                                  ... You confused me; my own pace is the primary reason why I moved away from Microsoft, to GNU/Linux. The not having time is the main reason I do not work
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jul 16, 2007
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In gnu-m68hc11@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@...> wrote:
                                    > It's the "my own pace" part of that ... I just don't have the time
                                    > to dig into either linux or Windows source code. If I can consult
                                    > with someone for free and get my answers that can save me a lot of
                                    > time.

                                    You confused me; "my own pace" is the primary reason why I moved away
                                    from Microsoft, to GNU/Linux. The "not having time" is the main reason
                                    I do not work on both (I think you understand). My consultations for
                                    any Linux OS (whether I give or receive) have been free. We can all
                                    see great value in owning a good OS. The end product is not the OS
                                    itself, but the real work that I can do using it. Since we have little
                                    time, shouldn't the question be: Where are you headed in so little
                                    time, and what will you do after that? After looking back, I'm sure
                                    glad I'm not still stuck where I was 15 years ago, just because I
                                    didn't have time to change.


                                    > I didn't reference improvements at all. That was a comment about how
                                    > their corporate culture has changed in the way they relate to
                                    > developers.

                                    Perhaps you misunderstood.

                                    Maybe the greates thing you misunderstand is that you are not the only
                                    person with access to the GCC source code. If you want a specific bug
                                    fixed in GCC, maybe one of the other 100,000 developers (or whatever)
                                    will have time to fix it. Surely there are more developers who can
                                    work on GCC than there are who are allowed to work on any one closed
                                    project within any one company.

                                    Well, maybe I'll email you the rest of my response privately. It is
                                    long, and nothing much to do with gnu-m68hc11.

                                    I do think that you understand the value of open source, but I laugh
                                    when you try to put something like "C#" in the same ballpark. I'm not
                                    trying to just give you a hard time. I'm trying to clarify some things
                                    that are important to me.

                                    Oh yea... isn't that C# real original... Maybe you thought MS invented
                                    C and C++, perhaps about the same time they invented "the Internet" ;-)

                                    I'm not saying that I think GCC is an original idea either, so I don't
                                    think they should charge "license fees" or keep the source code closed
                                    for that.
                                  • Mike McCarty
                                    Eric Engler wrote: [snip] ... SHH! Don t say that out loud! I pointed out that Linux is an OS, which is a program which permits me to manage my hardware, and
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jul 16, 2007
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Eric Engler wrote:

                                      [snip]

                                      > I have enough knowledge of both platforms to know that neither one
                                      > sucks and they both have merits in certain applications. It makes
                                      > little sense to get all emotional about an operating system. After
                                      > all, it's JUST an operating system! It can do almost nothing without
                                      > application programs and that's where we come in.

                                      SHH! Don't say that out loud! I pointed out that Linux is an OS, which
                                      is a program which permits me to manage my hardware, and load and run
                                      applications, not a religion or a paradigm shift, or the Downfall Of
                                      Capitalism As We Know It (which many Linux users fervently wish,
                                      seemingly) and I got severely chastised and asked to leave the user's
                                      forum as a result.

                                      [snip]

                                      > Money isn't evil. And companies aren't always evil. My company has

                                      The love of money can lead to all kinds of evil.

                                      > decided not to open their own source code and this is good for me
                                      > because it allows them to keep a competitive advantage and it keeps me
                                      > employed.

                                      There are people (I'm not one of them) who believe that trade secrets
                                      are evil.

                                      However, this thread is straying pretty far from the topic of using
                                      GCC on the MC68HC11.

                                      Mike
                                      --
                                      p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
                                      Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
                                      This message made from 100% recycled bits.
                                      You have found the bank of Larn.
                                      I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
                                      I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
                                    • Jeff Smith
                                      ... Oh that was probably not the reason you were cast out, LOL! But don t let them bother you. Everyone knows you mustn t take anyone seriously once you
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jul 16, 2007
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@...> wrote:
                                        > SHH! Don't say that out loud! I pointed out that Linux is an OS, which
                                        > is a program which permits me to manage my hardware, and load and run
                                        > applications, not a religion or a paradigm shift, or the Downfall Of
                                        > Capitalism As We Know It (which many Linux users fervently wish,
                                        > seemingly) and I got severely chastised and asked to leave the user's
                                        > forum as a result.

                                        Oh that was probably not the reason you were cast out, LOL! But don't let
                                        them bother you. Everyone knows you mustn't take anyone seriously once you
                                        realize that (s)he doesn't know what (s)he's talking about :-D I guess
                                        it's just harder for Linux guys to realize that.




                                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                        Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
                                        with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
                                        http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
                                      • Mike McCarty
                                        ... Oh, no, that was the reason, all right. The fellow made a very great point of how I didn t fit in with the Debian Social Contract, and was opposed to
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Jul 16, 2007
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Jeff Smith wrote:
                                          > --- Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >>SHH! Don't say that out loud! I pointed out that Linux is an OS, which
                                          >>is a program which permits me to manage my hardware, and load and run
                                          >>applications, not a religion or a paradigm shift, or the Downfall Of
                                          >>Capitalism As We Know It (which many Linux users fervently wish,
                                          >>seemingly) and I got severely chastised and asked to leave the user's
                                          >>forum as a result.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Oh that was probably not the reason you were cast out, LOL! But don't let
                                          > them bother you. Everyone knows you mustn't take anyone seriously once you
                                          > realize that (s)he doesn't know what (s)he's talking about :-D I guess
                                          > it's just harder for Linux guys to realize that.

                                          Oh, no, that was the reason, all right. The fellow made a very
                                          great point of how I didn't fit in with the Debian Social Contract,
                                          and was opposed to everything that Debian Stands For.

                                          http://www.debian.org/social_contract

                                          This was (partly) as a result of a discussion on the GPL.

                                          But we do stray...

                                          Mike
                                          --
                                          p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
                                          Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
                                          This message made from 100% recycled bits.
                                          You have found the bank of Larn.
                                          I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
                                          I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.